2026 INSC 744 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 12344 of 2026)

THE STATE OF ANDHRA

PRADESH ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SUDA SURESH VEERA

VENKATA NAGA RAJU ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The instant appeal by special leave is preferred

by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment

and final order dated 7

th July, 2026 passed by the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati

1 in

1

Hereinafter, referred to as ‘the High Court’.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 2

Criminal Petition No. 5443 of 2026, whereby the High

Court partly allowed the petition filed by the

appellant-State under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

2 and partly

modified the order dated 2

nd July, 2026 passed by the

learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Vijayawada in Crl.M.P. No. 1400 of 2026 in

Crime No. 107 of 2026 of Krishna Lanka Police

Station, whereby police custody of the respondent-

accused had been granted subject to a host of

conditions.

4. The respondent-accused being an Inspector of

Police is arraigned as an accused in connection with

FIR in Crime No. 107 of 2026 lodged at Krishna

Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada relating to

allegations of custodial death of one Gade Sai

Krishna

3 on 6

th May, 2026.

5. The deceased-victim was apprehended at

Markapur at about 3:00 a.m. on 6

th May, 2026 by the

Task Force personnel. At about 7:00 a.m. the same

day, he was brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station

and formally handed over to the sentry, whereafter,

2

For short, ‘BNSS’.

3

Hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased-victim’.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 3

along with his mobile phone, he came to be entrusted

to the respondent-accused. As per the prosecution,

the deceased-victim was never produced before the

learned Magistrate, and many witnesses saw him in

the police station with visible injuries.

6. The mother of the deceased-victim moved a

Habeas Corpus petition in the High Court of Andhra

Pradesh bearing Writ Petition No. 15132 of 2026 on

2

nd June, 2026. During the course of the proceedings

of the said petition, the respondent-accused being

the concerned Police Inspector suppressed the fact

that the deceased-victim had been apprehended and

kept in police custody. On 17

th June, 2026, the

respondent-accused was placed under suspension.

On 19

th June, 2026, the mother of the deceased-

victim lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of

Police, Vijayawada alleging illegal detention,

custodial torture resulting in death, and

disappearance of the body to screen the offenders

and destroy evidence. On the strength of the said

complaint, Crime No. 107 of 2026 came to be

registered at Krishna Lanka Police Station for

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 4

offences under Sections 127(4), 127(6), 103(1) and

238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

4.

7. The preliminary examination of the DVRs seized

from Krishna Lanka Police Station revealed that no

CCTV footage was available for the crucial period

during which the deceased-victim was stated to be in

custody.

8. On 21

st June, 2026, the Government of Andhra

Pradesh constituted a Special Investigation Team

5 to

investigate Crime No. 107 of 2026. The respondent-

accused was arrested by the SIT on 23

rd June, 2026

and was produced before the learned II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada on 24

th

June, 2026, whereupon he was remanded to judicial

custody and consequently lodged at the Central

Prison, Rajamahendravaram.

9. On 25

th June, 2026, the prosecution filed a

memo under Section 187 of the BNSS before the

learned Magistrate seeking twelve days police remand

of the respondent-accused, citing the imperative need

to trace the fate of the deceased-victim, identify co-

accused persons, recover material evidence, confront

4

For short, ‘BNS’.

5

Hereinafter, referred to as ‘SIT’.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 5

the respondent-accused with falsified official records

and for reconstruction of crime scene.

10. By a detailed order dated 2

nd July, 2026 passed

in Crl.M.P. No. 1400 of 2026, the learned II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada,

granted police custody of the respondent-accused for

a period of eight days, i.e., from 3

rd July, 2026 to 10

th

July, 2026, to be conducted within the premises of

the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, on the

following terms & conditions:

“28.1. The respondent/accused shall be entitled to

nominate two advocates, namely Sri P. Baburao and

one other advocate of his choice, to be present at the

Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, during police

custody. However, only one advocate shall be

permitted to remain present at any given point of time

during the interrogation.

28.2. The advocate accompanying the accused shall

remain within the line of sight of the interrogation,

but shall be positioned at a distance of not less than

ten (10) feet from the place of interrogation, or behind

a glass partition, so that the advocate may observe

the proceedings without being within hearing

distance.

28.3. The advocate shall not interfere with the

interrogation, communicate with, advise, prompt,

consult, or otherwise interact with the accused during

the course of interrogation.

28.4. The Investigating Officer shall ensure that the

entire interrogation is conducted within the coverage

area of the CCTV cameras or any other video

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 6

recording system installed in the jail premises, so as

to ensure transparency, fairness and accountability.

28.5. The entire period of police custody, including

every session of interrogation, shall be continuously

videographed and audio-visually recorded without

any interruption, pause or editing.

28.6. The original videographic recording shall be

preserved in its original form and produced before

this Court in a sealed cover immediately upon

completion of the police custody.

28.7. The Jail Superintendent/Jailor shall ensure

that the accused is not interrogated or interacted with

by the SIT officials except during the scheduled and

videographed interrogation sessions.

28.8. The Jail Superintendent/Jailor shall make

necessary arrangements within the jail premises,

preferably by providing a glass partition, enabling the

advocate to observe the interrogation while remaining

beyond hearing distance.

28.9. The Investigating Agency shall not subject the

accused to any threat, inducement, coercion, physical

assault, mental harassment or third-degree methods

during the course of custodial interrogation.

28.10. The Jail Superintendent/Jailor shall permit

the presence of one advocate during the interrogation

of the accused in accordance with the above

conditions and subject to the provisions of the Jail

Manual.

28.11. The Superintendent, Central Prison,

Rajamahendravaram, shall permit the Investigating

Officer, the Additional Superintendent of Police, other

authorised SIT officials, and the advocate of the

accused to enter the jail premises for the purpose of

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 7

investigation, strictly in accordance with the Jail

Manual.

28.12. Upon completion of each day’s interrogation,

the Jail Superintendent shall forthwith submit a

report to this Court indicating the time of arrival and

departure of the Investigating Officers and the

advocate present during the interrogation.

28.13. The Jail Superintendent shall ensure that the

CCTV footage recorded within the jail premises during

the period of police custody is preserved intact until

further orders of this Court and shall not permit its

deletion, overwriting or tampering.

28.14. The Investigating Officer, the Additional

Superintendent of Police, the members of the SIT, and

the Jail Superintendent shall be jointly and severally

responsible for ensuring the safety, life and physical

well-being of the accused/A.1/Suda Suresh Veera

Venkata Naga Raju, throughout the period of police

custody.

28.15. Under no circumstances shall the period of

police custody granted under this order be extended

beyond 10.07.2026.”

11. Aggrieved by the conditions aforesaid, to be

specific, Conditions 28.1, 28.4, 28.5, 28.10, 28.13,

28.14 and 28.15, the appellant-State preferred

Criminal Petition No. 5443 of 2026 before the High

Court under Section 528 of the BNSS on the ground

that confining the entire custodial interrogation to

the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, and

mandating an omnibus regime of continuous

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 8

videography impinged upon the autonomy of the

investigating agency rendered the very object of police

custody illusory.

12. The High Court disposed of the Criminal

Petition by modifying the order dated 2

nd July, 2026

to the following extent:

(i) The period of police custody shall commence

from 09.07.2026 and end by 16.07.2026;

(ii) The Investigation Officer of the Special

Investigation Team (SIT) is allowed to take the

Respondent/Accused to the scene of offences for

recovery of material evidence, reconstruction of

scene of offence and for such other purposes, in

accordance with the law, in the event of facts

revealed by the respondent-accused;

(iii) The Special Investigation Team (SIT) shall

take all necessary steps by considering the

ground realities to videograph the every

movement of the accused right from Central

Prison, Rajamahendravaram to Vijayawada and

vice-versa; and the Investigation Officer of the

Special Investigation Team (SIT) shall submit the

said videographic recordings in its original form

before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate

at Vijayawada, by 17.07.2026;

(iv) The Jail Superintendent, Central Prison,

Rajamahendravaram shall submit the entire

CCTV footage recorded in the Central Prison

during the course of police custody, in its

original form, to the concerned Jurisdictional

Magistrate at Vijayawada, by 17.07.2026;

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 9

(v) The Investigation Officer and all the

members of the SIT are directed to take all

positive steps to protect the life, limb and

personal dignity of the respondent/accused in

the light of constitutional safeguards, during the

entire period of police custody;

(vi) All the other conditions imposed by learned

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vijayawada, vide Order dated 02.07.2026 in

Crl.M.P.No. 1400 of 2026, shall remain intact;

(vii) The Special Investigation Team (SIT)

shall conduct an impartial and scientific method

of investigation to unravel the truth and uphold

the integrity of ‘Satyameva Jayate’, the national

motto of India.

13. The State is now before us by way of this appeal

with special leave questioning the aforesaid

conditions imposed by the High Court which, as per

the State, directly impinge upon the rights of the

Investigating Officer to conduct unhindered

investigation without any restrictions and conditions.

14. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel

representing the appellant-State vehemently and

fervently urged that the conditions imposed by the

learned Magistrate as modified but substantially

retained by the High Court tantamount to direct

intervention in the statutory right of the investigating

agency to conduct interrogation in a proper manner,

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 10

and that the very purpose of the purported

interrogation has been rendered nugatory by these

conditions. He submitted that the High Court as well

as the learned Magistrate seem to have proceeded

with a pre-conceived notion that the SIT will resort to

third-degree methods while conducting interrogation,

an apprehension which, according to him, is wholly

misconceived and unwarranted.

15. Learned senior counsel submitted that the

restrictions imposed by the High Court while

affirming many of the unjust and unrealistic

conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate

virtually make the efforts to interrogate the

respondent-accused ineffective. The direction to

videograph every movement of the accused right from

Central Prison, Rajamahandravaram to Vijayawada

and vice-versa impinges upon the freedom of the

investigating agency to reconstruct the crime scene

and frustrate the process of the disclosures which

may lead to the recovery of the dead body - an

imperative step of investigation.

16. Shri Luthra urged that the direction No. (iii)

contained in the High Court’s order effectively

translates into a situation that the interrogation of

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 11

the respondent-accused would have to be conducted

only at Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram and the

investigating agency would not be at liberty to

conduct such investigation in its own designated

interrogation centre where scientific and technical

facilities are available.

17. It was further submitted that once the High

Court, by Direction No. (v), had already bound the

investigating agency to take all positive steps to

protect the life, limb and personal dignity of the

respondent-accused in the light of constitutional

safeguards throughout the period of custody, no

further conditions were called for; and that the

retention of the remaining conditions imposed by the

learned Magistrate has created unnecessary hurdles

in the process of investigation thereby rendering the

police remand totally ineffective. Learned senior

counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned

judgment, as well as the order of the learned

Magistrate deserve to be set aside, and the SIT be

granted unfettered custody, subject only to such

constitutional safeguards as are consistent with the

law declared by this Court.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 12

18. Per contra, Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy, learned

senior counsel appearing for the respondent-accused

vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions

advanced on behalf of the State. He urged that the

respondent-accused had arrested many criminals

who are lodged in the Prison at Vijayawada. In case

he is taken to the said prison, his life would be at

risk. He urged that the other restrictions imposed by

the learned Magistrate and the High Court are

directly in line with the judgments rendered by this

Court and just reiterate the constitutional

protections to which every accused is entitled. He

thus urged that the impugned judgment does not

warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to

be dismissed.

19. We have heard the submissions advanced at bar

and have gone through the impugned order passed

by the High Court and so also the order passed by

the learned Magistrate which has been partially

affirmed by the High Court.

20. At the outset, we are concerned solely with the

narrow question of the legality and workability of the

conditions imposed during police custody period as

allowed by the learned Magistrate and modified by

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 13

the High Court. We feel that the apprehension

expressed by the investigating agency regarding the

hurdles created in effective custodial investigation

thereby frustrating the entire process is realistic and

justified. Moreover, the apprehension expressed by

the respondent-accused regarding the threat to his

life, limb and personal dignity has been taken care of

by the High Court by commanding that the

respondent-accused shall not be subjected to any

threat, inducement, coercion, physical assault and

third-degree methods during the course of custodial

investigation. Needless to say, that the burden would

be on the SIT to ensure all these safeguards

irrespective of the impugned orders as these

conditions are inherently provided in Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. The concerned authorities

including the investigating officer, the Additional

Superintendent of Police, the members of the SIT and

the jail superintendent have been held jointly and

severally responsible for ensuring safety and physical

well-being of the accused throughout the period of

police custody.

21. In this background, confining the entirety of the

custodial interrogation to the Central Prison,

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 14

Rajamahendravaram is neither justified nor

sustainable on the facts of this case. The offence of

custodial death in which the respondent-accused is

arraigned is alleged to have been committed at, and

in the vicinity of, Krishna Lanka Police Station,

Vijayawada; the dead body of the deceased-victim

remains untraced; the original hard disks of the

CCTV system are yet to be recovered; and it is the

specific case of the prosecution that discoveries

under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam, 2023 (erstwhile Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872) are imminent if the respondent-

accused is properly interrogated. The efficacy of this

procedure would undoubtedly be dependent upon

the investigating officer being able to take the

accused to the actual place of discovery, and not

merely to interrogate him about it from a distance of

160 kilometers.

22. The statutory scheme under the BNSS must

also be borne in mind. Section 187(2) and (3) BNSS,

unlike the erstwhile Section 167 under the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 enlarges the window

during which police custody, in the aggregate not

exceeding fifteen days, may be sought by the

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 15

investigating agency, such custody being available in

parts, during the first forty or sixty days of the total

permissible period of detention, rather than being

confined to the first fifteen days of remand alone. This

legislative change was intended precisely to meet

situations, such as the present, where fresh facts,

discoveries or leads may emerge during the course of

investigation warranting further custodial

interrogation, and an unduly rigid or premature

foreclosure of that statutory window, whether by a

Magistrate or by a court in the exercise of its

supervisory jurisdiction, would run counter to the

object of the provision. We are, therefore, unable to

sustain Condition 28.15, which places an absolute

and non-extendable outer limit on custody, since

such a limit forecloses recourse to Section 187(2)

BNSS regardless of what the investigation may yet

reveal.

23. Section 38 of the BNSS reads thus:

“38. Right of arrested person to meet an advocate of his

choice during interrogation. - When any person is

arrested and interrogated by the police, he shall be

entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during

interrogation, though not throughout interrogation.”

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 16

24. A plain reading of the provision makes it clear

that the right guaranteed thereunder is the right to

meet an advocate of choice during interrogation. It

does not, by any means, contemplate the continuous,

ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the

entirety of each interrogation session, whatever be

the visual or audible distance maintained. Therefore,

we are of the view that Conditions 28.1 to 28.3, 28.8

and 28.10, insofar as they permit the nomination of

two advocates and regulate the manner and distance

of the advocate’s presence so as to preclude

interference with, or communication during,

interrogation, are unobjectionable and, indeed,

salutary. However, the direction that such presence

should be available “at any given point of time during

the interrogation”, if construed as conferring an

unqualified entitlement to continuous presence,

would travel beyond what Section 38 BNSS itself

contemplates, and we clarify the position accordingly

in the operative directions that follow.

25. On the question of videography and CCTV

documentation, we are in agreement with the High

Court that such safeguards are salutary and ought

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 17

ordinarily to be retained so as to protect both the

accused, against any allegation of coercion, and the

investigating agency, against any unfounded

allegation of impropriety. However, the direction that

every movement of the accused, including transit of

about three hours each way over a distance of

approximately 160 kilometers between the Central

Prison, Rajamahendravaram and Vijayawada, must

be continuously videographed without interruption,

is, in our view, unworkable in practice. Interruptions

on account of movement, signal loss, battery and

storage, limitations of recording equipment, or

security considerations during transit are inherent

contingencies of road travel, and it would be

unrealistic, and self-defeating of the safeguard itself,

to visit the investigating agency with the consequence

of an inference of impropriety merely because of such

an interruption. What the safeguard requires is that

the interrogation itself, that is, the actual questioning

of, or interaction with, the respondent-accused be

continuously and contemporaneously recorded; the

requirement cannot extend to an inflexible mandate

to record every minute of transit, which is a totally

logistical exercise.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 18

26. As regards the apprehension voiced on behalf of

the respondent-accused that his life would be at risk

if lodged for interrogation at a facility in Vijayawada

on account of his having, during his tenure, effected

the arrest of persons presently confined there, we find

that this apprehension can be adequately addressed

by requiring that interrogation outside the Central

Prison, Rajamahendravaram be conducted at the

designated interrogation centre of the SIT or an

equivalent secure facility under police or SIT control,

and by continuing to fix joint and several

responsibility on the named officers for the

respondent-accused’s safety, as under Condition

28.14. We find no material on record, beyond the bald

and unverified apprehension, to suggest that the

designated interrogation centre would be unsafe or

inadequate for this purpose.

27. Having regard to the foregoing, the terms and

conditions imposed in the order of the learned

Magistrate and the High Court are modified in the

following terms: -

(i) The period of police custody shall commence

from the date of production of the respondent-

accused before the learned Magistrate pursuant

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 19

to this judgment and shall remain in force for a

period of seven (7) days therefrom. Thus, the

total period of police remand including that

granted by the Courts below would not exceed

fifteen (15) days.

(ii) The Investigating Officer shall have unrestricted

access to the respondent-accused during the

period of police custody for the purposes of

interrogation.

(iii) The condition confining custodial interrogation

exclusively to the Central Prison,

Rajamahendravaram is set aside as unworkable

and unjustified. The Investigating Officer shall be

at liberty to interrogate the respondent-accused

at the designated interrogation centre of the SIT,

or any other equivalent facility available with the

police authorities at Vijayawada.

(iv) The requirement that the process of custodial

interrogation, wherever conducted, shall be

conducted under CCTV coverage and/or

videographic supervision is retained. It is,

however, clarified that this requirement stands

satisfied by audio-visual recording of the actual

sessions of interrogation and of any proceedings

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 20

of discovery or recovery undertaken with the

accused; it shall not be read as mandating

uninterrupted videography of the transit of the

accused between locations.

(v) The Investigating Agency shall not subject the

respondent-accused to any threat, inducement,

coercion, physical assault, mental harassment or

third-degree methods during the course of

custodial interrogation, whether at the Central

Prison or elsewhere.

(vi) The direction given by the learned Magistrate

permitting presence of the lawyer is retained with

the modification that such lawyer shall only be

allowed to remain present within the site of

interrogation where he can see the respondent-

accused. However, the lawyer shall not be

permitted to intervene in the process of

investigation at any cost.

(vii) A copy of the CCTV footage and of the

videographic recording in its original form

without deletion, overwriting, editing or

tampering shall be produced, together with a

certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya

Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 21

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872),

before the learned Magistrate at Vijayawada

upon the completion of the period of police

custody.

(viii)The Investigating Officer, the Additional

Superintendent of Police, the members of the SIT,

and the Jail Superintendent/officer-in-charge of

the facility where the accused is lodged during

custody, shall be jointly and severally

responsible for ensuring the safety, life and

physical well-being of the respondent-accused

throughout the period of police custody.

(ix) The SIT shall conduct an impartial, fair and

scientific investigation strictly in accordance with

law, uninfluenced by any observation made in

this judgment or in the judgment of the High

Court, such observations having been made

solely for the disposal of the re spective

proceedings.

28. The appeal is allowed in these terms.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 22

29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

….……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH )

...…………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

JULY 27, 2026.